From the issue dated November 8, 2002
|
|
Whose Jihad?My response depends on whether the United States has gone to war with Iraq under
The principle of legality can only mean the application of uniform standards, through regular and transparent processes, for the investigation and adjudication of disputes, in contrast to arbitrary self-help and vigilante justice. Legality fails whenever its subjects act without institutional authorization and supervision. The U.N. Charter prohibits the use of force in international disputes, except when expressly authorized by the Security Council in order to secure international peace and security. Waging war on Iraq outside that framework is unlawful, unless in immediate and proportionate self-defense against "an armed attack" as stipulated by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Claims of "pre-emptive" self-defense are legally untenable and politically dangerous. It is also clear that unlawful conduct cannot be justified by its outcome. Those calling for war on Iraq claim that the overthrow of the oppressive and violent regime of Saddam Hussein would lead to an immediate improvement in the prospects of democratization and protection of human rights in the country. Even if that turns out to be a true and sustainable outcome, which is far from clear or certain, such retroactive rationalization cannot justify the initial illegality of the action. This war will be seen against the background of European colonialism that legitimized the conquest of the rest of the world by deeming its peoples to be unworthy of national sovereignty and the right to self-determination. The spectacle of the "Imperial Republic" of the United States carrying the mantle of its European origins will probably be seen as a global regression into colonialism. For many Muslims, that would justify retaliatory lawlessness "in self defense." Recent instances of so-called Islamic jihad are objectionable for being direct and unregulated uses of violence in pursuit of political objectives. The same is true of a war on Iraq without the sanction and supervision of the Security Council. It is immaterial that one form of jihad is rationalized on religious grounds and the other as "unilateral national interest," because that relates only to the motivation of the actors, rather than to their deliberate intention to act in this lawless way. The U.N. charter's purpose is not only to prevent wars of aggression; it also upholds universal human rights. Violating the first by waging war on Iraq outside the framework of the United Nations would make it much harder to uphold the second because it would undermine the legitimacy and efficacy of the charter itself. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, professor of law at Emory University and author of Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law (Syracuse University Press, 1990) http://chronicle.com Section: The Chronicle Review Volume 49, Issue 11, Page B13
|
Copyright © 2002 by The Chronicle of Higher Education